Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world hints. The description adds that wording never changes after publication and that outcome is null until resolution, which are meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the structured annotations. It does not, however, mention pagination, rate limits, or output shape. Given the annotation coverage, this is a useful addition.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then a behavioral detail, then a scope disclaimer. All sentences are relevant and none are filler, though the final sentence about not certifying truth is a scope caveat rather than operational guidance. It remains appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with a full schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (immutable published wording, null outcome pre-resolution) and a scope disclaimer. It omits return format and pagination, but with no output schema and the current level of detail, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description notes that calls are 'dated' and have resolution dates, but adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already states for status and resolves_before. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves 'the calls printed in The Durability Curve Weekly.' It further distinguishes the content (dated, checkable predictions with confidence printed at the time and resolution date/event) from what sibling tools likely cover. An agent can identify exactly what this tool returns without inspecting the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the tool for retrieving weekly calls, but it never explicitly says when to use it versus siblings such as get_claim_ledger or search. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool routing statements. For a read-only retrieval with a clear domain, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.